[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL BY JURY Trial
TO THE HONORABLE COURT, TO PLAINTIFFS AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD THEREIN:

MARGARET A. NAGLE, Magistrate Judge.

On May 6, 2013, the foregoing matter was called for trial in Courtroom 580 of the United States District Court, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Margaret A. Nagle presiding. The parties answered ready for Trial. On May 6, 2013, a panel of jurors was called and sworn.

The case was tried to the jury and on May 10, 2013, the case was then submitted to the jury for deliberation.

On May 10, 2013, the jury returned a unanimous verdict as follows:

We, the jury, answer the questions submitted to us as follows:

QUESTION NUMBER 1

Do you find that plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant police officer caused the unreasonable detention of any of the following plaintiffs?

If you answered "yes" to Number 1, please place an "X" next to the name of each plaintiff below you find was unreasonably detained and below that individual's name, place an "X" next to the name of the officer or officers who caused the unreasonable detention. If you answered "no" to Question Number 1, proceed to Question Number 2.

....

QUESTION NUMBER 2

Do you find that plaintiff Joseph Holiday proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant police officer caused him to be arrested without probable cause?

If you answered "yes" to Number 2, please place an "X" next to the name of the officer or officers who caused plaintiff Joseph Holiday to be arrested without probable cause. If you answered "no" to Question Number 2, proceed to Question Number 3.

....

QUESTION NUMBER 3

Do you find that plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant police officer caused any of the following plaintiffs to be unreasonably searched?

If you answered "yes" to Number 3, please place an "X" next to the name of each plaintiff below who you find was unreasonably searched and below that individual's name, and place an "X" next to the name of the officer or officers who caused the unreasonable search. If you answered "no" to Question Number 3, proceed to Question Number 4.

....

QUESTION NUMBER 4

Do you find that plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant police officer caused any plaintiff's First Amendment rights to be violated?

If you answered "yes" to Number 4, please place an "X" next to the name of each plaintiff below whose First Amendment right you find were [sic] violated and below that individual's name, place an "X" next to the name of the officer or officers who caused the First Amendment violation. If you answered "no" to Question Number 4, proceed to Question Number 5.

....

QUESTION NUMBER 5

Did plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant intentionally interfered with any plaintiff's civil rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion?

If you answered "yes" to Number 5, please place an "X" next to the name of each plaintiff below whose civil rights you find were interfered with by threats, intimidation, or coercion and place an "X" next to the name of the defendant(s) who intentionally interfered with his or her civil rights by threats, intimidation or coercion.

....

ORDER

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, DECREED AND ADJUDGED that judgment on the merits be entered in favor of Defendants, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, NICHOLAS CHO, JOHNNY CERVANTES, and DAVID ROSS and against Plaintiffs JAMES DUFF LYALL, JOSEPH HOLLIDAY, BENJAMIN WOOD, SASHA COSTAZA-CHOCK, MAGNOLIA BECERRA, ELIZABETH LOPEZ, AND JESSICA RODRIGUEZ (Javier Cortez and D'Angelo Jones having been dismissed, with prejudice, prior to the commencement of trial upon agreement for both parties), that the Plaintiff take nothing; and that the Defendants, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, NICHOLAS CHO, JOHNNY CERVANTES, and DAVID ROSS, as the prevailing parties, shall be entitled to recover their costs reasonably incurred in defense of this action per the cost bill in the amount of $__________________________. (To be determined from the Bill of Costs.)

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.